Pages

Sunday, 26 August 2012

Gorrie was the MP for Edinburgh West from 1997 to 2001, and
MSP for the Central Scotland region from 1999 until 2007. However, these raw facts do not tell the full
story of his political life. A
long-standing member of the Liberal Party, Gorrie served as a councillor at
either regional, district or city level from 1971 until his election as an MP twenty-six
years later. A tireless campaigner,
especially in regards challenging sectarianism (he was fiercely opposed to
faith schools) and the creation of a Scottish parliament, he was also
persistent – standing unsuccessfully for the parliamentary seat four times
before eventually winning it.

An inaugural member of the Scottish Parliament, Gorrie’s
individuality and commitment to principle became quickly evident in his
opposition to the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition at Holyrood. While there were, at the time, strong working
relationships between the two parties and the respective leaders (Donald Dewar
and Jim Wallace) Gorrie was more suspicious of Labour authoritarianism and
centralist tendencies. He was also
critical of Dewar himself and, in particular, the First Minister’s role in mismanaging
the Parliament building project, claiming that Dewar has designed it as a
personal memorial. Gorrie remained
irreversibly opposed to ongoing collaboration with Labour in spite of his
strong left-leaning liberalism – opposition that would see him sometimes unfairly
cast as rebellious and awkward.

He created some difficulties for his own party’s
leadership. In spite of his evident
liberal instincts and commitment to party policy he would often find himself at
odds with Jim Wallace and, later, Nicol Stephen. He was particularly vocal in his support for environmental
justice and the Third Party Right of Appeal, a Lib Dem policy that was not
implemented by the party’s ministers. Gorrie also supported (as, unsurprisingly,
did I) the SNP’s policy of an independence referendum, arguing that the Lib
Dems should “never say never” to either a referendum or coalition talks with
the SNP – advice that was ignored in 2007.
This was partly motivated by a determination to avoid continued
identification with a domineering Labour Party, but unquestionably he was also
a pragmatist who recognised that Lib Dems should be willing to work with
whichever party was more amenable to the prospect of implementing liberal
policy in government. He also foresaw
that by ruling out a referendum the Lib Dems were weakening their political
position and hoped that his party would support a two-question referendum.

Gorrie used his time in Holyrood to champion causes and
issues in which he had a political interest, such as LGBT equality, tackling
the problems associated with alcohol abuse and climate change. He supported the controversial smoking ban and
was implacably opposed to the introduction of HE tuition fees. Not always liked but respected by colleague and political opponent alike, Gorrie's greatest legacy appears to have been to inspire others. Today, people such as Hugh O'Donnell and Alex Cole-Hamilton praised their former mentor. Many more liberals owe a great deal to the man Cole-Hamilton described as "a liberal lion who liked to kick holes in the establishment". Perhaps, in no small way due to Gorrie's influence, there are many such liberal lions roaming around Scotland today.

Scottish Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie paid tribute to
Gorrie:

“With a
liberal backbone made of steel Donald Gorrie dedicated his life to challenging
the establishment. A highly effective
councillor and parliamentarian he revelled in the battle for fairness,
opportunity and justice. Donald was
never afraid to be a lone voice and his boundless energy was evident throughout
his thirty six years of public service. The
Liberal Democrats will forever be grateful for the life of Donald Gorrie. We
will miss him.”

I did not know Gorrie personally, but I am more than aware of the huge contribution he made to Scottish liberalism and our country's politics more generally. In tribute I will simply say this: he was my kind of liberal.

Friday, 24 August 2012

I love conference. And I love Brighton. But I'm going to give conference a miss this year and it seems many others are too.

Part of the attraction of conference, for me at least, is the opportunity that it presents for meeting and interacting with fellow liberals. Connecting with others in a way that ordinarily I wouldn't be able to is something I value highly, and I've met many of my friends at conference while for some of my other friends conference provides a rare chance to get together.

Conference is also useful in that it allows someone like me from a small town that no-one outside of Inverclyde has ever heard of the opportunity to see something of the wider political picture, to contribute to discussion and perhaps even question ministers.

This time round, however, many of my friends are not going. I've asked some of them why and they have wildly different reasons. For some, the agenda is completely unexciting and lacking in ambition (sorry to be cavalier folks, but there's a pretty obvious solution to that one). Others feel that while our conference is the most democratic of the three major parties', that is pretty irrelevant when ministers choose to ignore policy decisions made by the membership. Some understandably aren't too impressed with the intense security checks. Another feels Nick Clegg has lost credibility and that the leadership are becoming more and more detached from both the realities on the ground and the concerns of party activists. I've also been told that the leadership don't "get" either Scotland or the North of England, so having a conference in Brighton is bound to make the event more South-centric. More concerning are the views of those who feel that conference is now just a pointless stage-managed political and media circus, as also are those of others who think that it is being hi-jacked by various "factions" within the party. Certainly the emergence of different strands within the party should be a positive thing and something I would naturally welcome as a means of facilitating diversity, but the arrogance of some of these groups in combination with ill-disguised hostility towards the others does not make for pleasant viewing. Lib Dems will know exactly what I mean. It doesn't make for a positive, uplifting conference or do much to present a united front.

I understand all these concerns. I even share some of them. But being the kind of person I am I'd still go to conference if I could - I'd even go to other parties' conferences if they'd let me in! I'm going to really hate watching proceedings on the TV but this year I'm going to have to. For one very simple reason.

I can't afford it.

I really don't have the finances to take a week off work (being self-employed) and to spend money I don't have on travel and accommodation. I've had to ask whether my political obsession and incurable love for conference is worth making the sacrifice. I decided it was. My better half however took a different line and I have to concede that this was one argument I knew I wasn't going to win. I simply can't justify it.

I don't think there could be much further away from Kilmacolm that the party could hold its conference. The expense is significant but the time spent travelling is also a huge consideration especially when you have a new baby. It's not simply a factor for those fortunate enough to be new parents though - from what I gather there are no other representatives from Inverclyde going down this year and I suspect that is also true of many other Scottish constituencies.

So - that's why you won't be seeing me at conference this year. No doubt you were expecting a rant about why I've given up on the party or why I think conference has become irrelevant in respect to meeting the needs of party members. The truth is that I'd love to be catching up with old acquaintances and making new ones, maybe again contributing to debates or perhaps even managing to ask Nick Clegg a hard question but it's not worth making an 800 mile round trip and incurring significant expense to do it.

I'd hope that Federal Conference Committee would have considered the difficulties many members have in attending and would have looked for means of remedying them - most obviously, from the point of view of democratic participation, electronic voting via the internet. However, given that we don't seem to be seriously considering facilitating such a revolutionary move, I'll just have to look forward to Glasgow next year. See you all then!

Wednesday, 22 August 2012

So states the Scottish Lib Dems' website in a rather disingenuous headline, announcing that an "independent" panel of experts has presented its findings in respect to its views on the form the question in the forthcoming independence referendum should take.It's disingenuous of course because no question has been published, merely advice as to how that question should be asked and what form the question should take. I'm not going to question the expertise of the panel, which includes Prof Stewart Sutherland, Dr Matt Qvortrup and Ron Gould. I'm even in agreement with some of the sentiments reportedly expressed by the panel, including that "every people has a right to self-determination but that right can only be exercised if they are asked a clear and unequivocal question". Whether a panel whose remit came directly from the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem parties can be truly called "independent" is, however, questionable. I am not suggesting that the academics themselves are politically biased, but they will surely have been aware that their work and findings will be used for political purposes and to justify a particular approach on behalf of the parties that commissioned them. Already the three leaders are seeking to make capital from this, suggesting in the process that the First Minister would prefer confusion over clarity.This is, of course, just one political battle in a wider war, with Salmond keen to remind Labour and the Lib Dems of the opportunities a second question may have afforded them and the unionist parties keen to play up the need for "clarity" (unhelpful talk of court decisions, etc.), attempting to take some high ground from drafting a question ahead of the SNP and then claiming credit when the SNP eventually get round to putting forward a question that is either similar or identical. None of this political one-upmanship is attractive to Scottish voters.While I respect the expertise on the panel, I'd be interested to know why it was seen as so necessary - and how it was funded. Presumably expertise doesn't come cheap and if the panel was jointly commissioned by the three parties I'd take a stab at the cost being shared equally. Quite how a party that couldn't stretch to an election leaflet for me in the Holyrood elections last year can be throwing cash at academics simply to make some political capital from the SNP's current alleged lack of progress on drafting a question I don't know. As a party member I'd ask if it was money well spent.In fairness, the findings of the panel were hardly unexpected. Anyone with even a passing interest in constitutional matters will argue that referenda need to have clear questions and clear outcomes. I could have given the same answer for nothing if I'd been asked. In fact, no-one is disputing this. There was little particularly complex about the matter brought before the panel - this really is all much ado about nothing.More interestingly, I had a conversation with chief whip Alistair Carmichael on facebook recently (I am so glad we have a chief whip who talks to members on facebook) about this very issue and he stated that "the number of questions on the ballot form will never define or limit the terms of the debate but will most probably be the start of it." Wise words indeed. He also went on to state that we need a single question referendum for practical and "political" reasons (i.e. antipathy towards the SNP) and insisted that such a referendum was needed "sooner rather than later". It's a bit of a shame Mr Carmichael and other Lib Dems weren't saying the same kind of things before the SNP won its majority in Holyrood. We may have then been able to not only influence the wording of the question but help frame the terms and direction of the debate. As it stands, whether we like it or not, Alex Salmond has won a mandate to ask the question and therefore to decide what that question is. Ultimately the Electoral Commission will determine whether that question is suitable and fair, not the unionist parties of Scotland or a panel appointed by those parties, however "independent" and "expert" they may be.Besides, Alex Salmond and his party have already intimated that their preferred question is "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?" I fail to see what is so confusing about that, why it lacks clarity or why it is at odds with the recommendations of the experts.I don't doubt that when the SNP actually confirms its final question it will be clear and direct. Until that time I don't see how much can be gained from speculating the precise wording or by asserting a right to determine the question on the part of political parties who long ago surrendered any moral right to do so. Perhaps, instead of insisting that the SNP sign up to the recommendations of the "independent" panel, the other parties should be happy to accept the SNP's stated preferred question as a starting point?In any case a single-question referendum cannot be too complicated. Voters already know what they're voting for - we even have "Yes" and "No" camps before the question has even been properly conceived! Perhaps, if our leaders are serious about "moving on to a real debate about our country's future", isn't it time for our political parties to concentrate on the answers rather than the question? There are far more pertinent issues for our political leaders to get their collective teeth into without them adding to the apparent confusion by confusing people with talk of confusion.

Tuesday, 14 August 2012

I absolutely love sport and in particular the festival of
international sport that is the Olympic Games.
I’ve watched every Games since Los Angeles in 1984, admittedly with
varying degrees of interest. And while I’m
naturally cynical at the way in which the Olympics are rapidly becoming the
World Corporate Games – just another symbol of the strength of global
capitalism – undoubtedly they continue to inspire, entertain, thrill,
disappoint, create controversy, produce heroes and, most significantly, play
host to the highest level of competitive sport.

Unlike in previous years I have been able to remove
myself from the TV screen and have been privileged to have been able to
actually attend the Games. This provides
a new perspective and allows an insight into the organisation and delivery of
the Games as well as offering a taste of the public appetite. It was curious how quickly negativity
subsided once the games began and was replaced by an overwhelming sense of
national pride; also striking was the sense of expectation among visitors to
London that these Games would be memorable for all the right reasons. Travelling to the East End via the tube made
it impossible not to encounter sporting pilgrims from various corners of the
world, some more obviously patriotic than others but all carrying that
infectious enthusiasm and sense of anticipation that something historic was in
the making, as indeed it was.

I’m not going to attempt to meaningfully review the
extraordinary last two weeks. What I
will do is to share with you the moments to me that defined the Olympics – for better
and for worse. These were truly fantastic
Olympics but not everything I take away from them is positive and in the glow
of national pride it is easy to overlook both these negativities and the
supreme achievements of others.

Here are what I consider the best and worst of the London
Olympics:

The BEST

1. The incredible
performance of Manteo Mitchell, a US sprinter in the 4 x 400m relay. It is not unusual in high-intensity games for
athletes to pick up injuries and be forced to withdraw but what Mitchell
managed is quite incredible. Half way
into his run, Mitchell heard a “pop” and feared the worst but knew that
withdrawal would lose his team a place in the final so continued running with
what was later discovered to be a broken leg.
A truly heroic performance and one which helped his team-mates secure a
silver medal.

2. Another relay
performance, this time by the American women’s team in the 4 x 100m final. To beat arch-rivals Jamaica so convincingly
and in 40.82 seconds was sensational. To
shatter the 27-year old record set by East Germany in utterly brilliant fashion
was truly fantastic – and a historic step as it ensured the spectre of the
former GDR, at least in sporting terms, is finally put to rest.

3. Natalia
Partyka. I must confess to having known
nothing about this Polish table-tennis player prior to having the privilege of
actually watching the girl in action at the ExCeL Arena. She has no right hand or forearm, but
manages to serve effectively balancing the ball on her elbow. She came though her second round match
against the Dane Mie Skov in dramatic style, in less than an hour demonstrating
the triumph of ability over disability.

4. The crowd at
the women’s football final. The
newspapers might have chosen to ignore it, but anyone actually watching the
match will remember FIFA President Sepp Blatter being booed by the 80,000
people inside the ground. For someone
who represents so much of what is wrong with world sport, and who has been no
friend of women’s football, it was perhaps unwise for him to have made an
appearance at all, let alone presented the medals. Fortunately the Wembley crowd was on hand to
give him the treatment he fully merited.

5. David Rudisha’s
incredible run in the 800m final. Personally,
I admire 800m and 1500m runners far more than I do the 100m sprinters – it’s
just a shame that the media disagree.
Whatever the amazing achievements of Usain Bolt, it takes a superior
discipline and tactical awareness to run to 800m success – to do it, as Rudisha
did, so comprehensively and in such time, breaking the world record in the
process and in spite of his competitors posting impressive personal times, was
simply amazing. Seb Coe rated this as
the stand-out performance of the London Olympics and for once I wouldn’t
disagree.

6. People feeling
good about themselves. In austerity
Britain, the Olympics provided a rare opportunity to feel good about who we are
and what we can offer the world. Ok, for
most of us it was just the chance for a bit of escapism, to have a bit of a party and
enjoy a bit of sport. But surely that’s
the whole point of it? If the games were
a success, they should be measured as such not by the number of gold medals for
Team GB, nor the commercial and economic benefits or the efficiency with which
they were organised and delivered – but instead by how much the public enjoyed
them. We did, either at the games or
glued to our TV sets, cheering on performances in sports such as dressage that
no sane person would ordinarily even glance at.
Feeling good is priceless and it’s a long time since we have
collectively been able to.

7. Saudi Arabia’s Sarah
Attar, who became the first woman from that country to participate in the Olympic
Games . Admittedly she lives in the USA
and has dual citizenship but by choosing to represent Saudi Arabia she has
forced the Saudi authorities to reconsider the role of women on sport and wider
society and hopes to inspire women. Her time and performance were in a sense
academic as what was of greater significance was the moment itself – a moment
of inspiration, of defiance towards religious ultra-conservatism and of
championing equality: one of those rare moments when politics and sport become
intertwined in a positive way. The crowd
realised the significance of Sarah’s presence and awarded her with a standing
ovation.

These were the first Olympic games ever when every
participating team included female athletes, a statistic suggesting that a
corner has definitely been turned. That
there continues to be a huge mountain to climb to achieve genuine equality is undeniable
but the momentum now certainly lies with the progressives. I suspect Saudi Arabia will never again field
a male-only team, something for which we should be grateful to Sarah Attar.

8. Andy
Murray. Enough said.

9. Jade Jones’ stunning
victory in taekwondo. Team GB produced
some fine Olympian performances from Laura Trott, Mary King (at 51 years old
and in her sixth Olympics), Helen Glover and Heather Stanning, Greg Rutherford,
Mo Farah, Anna Watkins and Katherine Grainger (finally winning gold in the
fourth Games). But Jones was the pick of them all in my view,
not least that her impressive feat was entirely unexpected. The media and British taekwondo fans were
confident that Britain would secure a medal but were looking to Sarah
Stephenson, not the 19 year old from North Wales. Jones explained afterwards that “I’m still
making a lot of mistakes [and at 19] I’m not fully developed yet”. You really have to feel that the future of British
taekwondo has never been brighter.

10. The Opening
Ceremony. As a whole I found it unsatisfactory in some respects. I felt the notions of “Britishness”
it tried to communicate were narrow, stereotypical and based on a more than
inaccurate “feel good” interpretation of history. The section on the NHS was not only overly
sentimental but probably made very little sense to the millions around the
world watching. But there were brilliant
moments, not least the Queen jumping out of a helicopter, Mr Bean’s appearance,
the coming together of the Olympic rings; the arrival of the torch and the
lighting of the cauldron were brilliantly staged. There have been so many reviews of the
ceremony that to add to them seems rather pointless; suffice to say, Danny
Boyle is a creative genius.

11. A personal one
– Team Hungary finishing higher in the medal table than Australia. Who would have imagined it?

And now, the WORST...

1. Accusations that Chinese swimmer Ye Shiwen had been taking performance enhancing substances
dominated headlines on day 3 of the Games.
Of course if any athlete had been actually found using such substances,
or there was any evidence with which to back up the claim, it would certainly
have been a news story. But giving
credence to claims of opponents whose only basis for their suggestion was the
quality of her performances (she actually swam faster than Ryan Lochte and
women just, you know, aren’t supposed to do that) is not in the Olympic spirit and
represents poor journalism. Why should a
gold medallist have to defend themselves at a press conference, only for the
members of the press present to naturally run with the “drugs controversy” headline? The claim was petty and malicious, something
even Seb Coe suggested when asserting there was “no factual basis to
support...these insinuations”. Ye herself
handled the pressure well, stating that “in other countries people have won
multiple medals and people have said nothing. Why are they just criticising me?
I have absolutely not taken anything.” Of
course, she hadn’t – perhaps in future the British media will not be quite so
keen to play up the accusations of a bad sport ?

2. The Olympics
really did seem to bring out the worst in some people. These included sections of the media for whom
anything less than gold for British participants represented failure. After day two ended without that as yet elusive
gold medal being gained, the BBC’s highlights programme suggested that if the
following day yielded no such prizes then “serious questions would be asked”. Really?
Why not actually wait until Britain are participating in events that,
you know, they’re good at? It was
ridiculous, as was the media response to Mark Cavendish’s inability to win a
medal of any colour in the road race which prompted Cavendish to remark “why
the stupid questions? Do you know
anything about cycling?”

The worst treatment seemed to be reserved to the
inspirational and altogether lovely Rebecca Adlington who was unable to repeat
the double-gold winning feat of Beijing, in part due to the rising of a new
star of the pool, Katie Ledecky. The
fact that Adlington had become the most decorated woman in GB swimming history
was lost on many observers, who chose to focus on disappointment rather than
record-breaking achievement. It was
pitiful and disrespectful to an outstanding performer who deserved so much
better.

3. Vindictive
officials. There were some of them,
given one iota of power that they were determined to wield and who seemed bent
on destroying the Games for reasons unknown.
Take the case of South Korea’s Shin A-Lam who was denied a place in the
final on the basis of an honest counting mistake by a 15 year-old volunteer. Having the right of appeal, she used it –
however, in spite of her being technically correct, the referee refused to
reverse the decision. Cue boos and a
sit-down protest. Worse still could be found
in the velodrome in the women’s sprint semi-final when British duo Victoria Pendleton
and Jess Varnish were denied a place in the final due to a takeover error. Replays showed an infringement had taken
place but, as the rules allow for a little flexibility in application and the
girls didn’t actually gain an advantage from it the disqualification was
harsh. Nothing can excuse the commissar’s
verdict in the final however, disqualifying the Chinese team on the basis of an
apparently identical breach of the rules that scores of TV replays failed to
detect. The dictatorial official’s word
is final and doesn’t, it seems, require evidence. Sadly for China, the right to appeal in
Olympic sport does not yet extend to Cycling, something that should surely be
reconsidered in the light of this and the incident involving Pendleton and Anna
Meares in the individual sprint final.

4. French
accusations of cheating on the part of the Team GB cycling team. The French questioned every GB victory, eventually
expressing their collective frustration in the rather imaginative complaint that Chris Hoy et al were using “magic wheels”.
It was typically mean-spirited and shows how competitive sport can sometimes
cause logic to give way to paranoia and nastiness.

5. Attempts by SouthKorean, Chinese and Indonesian badminton players to fix matches by deliberately losing. Admittedly, the system devised for London –
replacing the previously straight-forward knock-out system at previous Games –
made this kind of action more likely and perhaps the consequences should have been
foreseen. But the actions of these
athletes was inexcusable, not least by the Chinese duo who had such disdain for
the referee that, when threatened with disqualification, they reportedly told him
that he had no authority to remove them from the next round of the competition
as they had already qualified and that they would be (obviously) happy to
forfeit the match in which they were playing.
The attitudes were as disappointing as the dreadful displays for which
spectators had paid to watch and the four duos were all excluded from later
rounds of the competition.

6. Lazy commentators. The football was particularly bad in this
respect, with viewers sometimes left wondering if those giving the verdicts
actually knew anything about one team or the other. There were some priceless moments, but what was frustrating was the constant inability to separate Team GB
from the entity that is the England National Football Team. This was most infuriating when, after Stuart
Pearce’s team was defeated on spot-kicks by South Korea, the commentators
declared “and so we go out on penalties again”.
AGAIN? When did Team GB last lose on penalties? This kind of remark – and there were more
like it – shows that the cynicism many felt towards a collective Team GB was
well placed.

7. Attempts to use
the achievements of GB athletes for political purposes. I have been absolutely appalled by the way in
which senior politicians, and indeed political activists, have sought to make
capital from the achievements of Team GB athletes. The SNP’s attempt to pick out “Scolympians”
was short-sighted and unnecessary, as were unionist attempts to claim that Team
GB demonstrates how much “better together” we are. The latter argument was particularly stupid as, if
sporting success is to be a key factor in determining a nation’s constitutional
future, it’s a great shame that China and North Korea had a particularly good
Olympics. The worst of this
politicisation of the Games was in the aftermath of Andy’s Murray victory when,
instead of concentrating on the impressive defeat of some Swiss guy many were
instead more interested in the fact that Murray appeared to mumble a few words
of the National Anthem and was draped in a Union Flag. Unionists grasped their opportunity to spin
this in the most crudely obvious of ways, while nationalists responded equally predictably. If the Olympics proved anything, it’s how
tribal Scottish politics have become.
Even the BBC’s Nick Robinson began speculating that Murray’s professional
behaviour as a member of Team GB might be “noteworthy” as far as Scotland’s
political future is concerned. How
responsible was that?

Politicians like
to play the patriotism card and they’ve been doing that shamelessly for the
last few weeks.That’s to be expected.Seeing unionists and nationalists exchanging
tit-for-tat insults is undignified and, to my mind, disrespectful to the
athletes themselves.What was notable in
that when Chris Hoy explained to the Channel 4 news that “I’m Scottish and British. I think you
can be both – they are not mutually exclusive” this was seized upon by politicians
and political commentators including former Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Unfortunately they failed to notice that,
during the same interview, Hoy explained that it is “frustrating because as an
athlete all you want to do is race and be best you can and not get dragged into
politics." Perhaps those professing
respect for the man should actually have listened to him and not “dragged him into
politics”?

Fortunately by the end of
the Games the SNP had abandoned their emphasis on “Scolympians” and Pete
Wishart MP was saying some very positive things about Mo Farah. However, the inescapable truth is that shallow
politically-minded people have seen fit to make mileage from others’ sacrifices
and achievements. As former councillor
Alex Dingwall noted on facebook, “I really wish all sides
would stop seeking to grab the success of athletes and spin it for their cause
- it's shameful for any politician to try to hijack the hard work and
dedication of our athletes in this way.”
Indeed – can’t we just celebrate sport for sport’s sake?

8. Aidan
Burley. There would have been no reason
why anyone outside the Westminster bubble would have heard of this pathetic man
if it were not for his outbursts on twitter in regards the Opening Ceremony,
which he seemed to think was the product of some far-left conspiracy. In particular he raged against “left-wing
multi-cultural crap” forgetting that the Olympics is actually a celebration of
internationalism and diversity. Given
his views on immigration, I’d like to know what he thinks of Mo Farah. (It should be noted that the fiercely Little
Englander Tory MP was born in New Zealand).

9. While it was
great to see Sarah Attar competing and the large number of British women medallists
at these games, another spectre of inequality cast its shadow over the London
Games. Research by the Sutton Trust and
statistics appearing in The Guardian show
that privately-educated individuals make up a disproportionate number of our
athletes and that in some sports, especially equestrianism, this is at
particularly high levels. Questions must
be asked about London 2012’s “inspire a generation” motto. Inspire it to do what? Gain a public-school education because that
is the surest way to sporting success? Will
action be taken to ensure greater access to, and involvement in, competitive
sport for all? Or will elite competition
continue to be dominated by those sufficiently privileged to have had an elite
schooling? My personal view is that we cannot allow our success in London to obscure the urgent need for action. Regrettably, the likelihood is that Team GB's considerable success will mask the reality that progress needs to be made, and it will be business as usual for the foreseeable future.

10. The media
derision of beach volleyball. Love it or
hate it, it’s now impossible to ignore it.
You might not have known that these games featured water polo, handball
or Greco-Roman wrestling because practically no attention was paid to these
sports by the BBC - but beach volleyball was on our screens quite frequently. The thing is, the media love the spectacle
and the culture surrounding it while simultaneously demeaning the game itself,
considering it a non-sport and trivialising the achievements of its stars. This is thoroughly depressing and must stop,
as I discussed here.

11. The hijacking
of the games by corporate entities. I
note that the main sponsors (Cadbury’s and McDonald’s) are not likely to
produce many products enjoyed by super-fit athletes on a regular basis. The worst example was the “deal” with Visa,
that only allowed for payments via Visa cards in the main venues. “We are proud to only take VISA” proclaimed
the signs. Proud? Proud to deny alternative forms of payment? What kind of pride is that? There were of course so many other examples
of rampant sports capitalism it seems wrong to single any particular example
out but (while I’m not opposed to sponsorship) when it comes to limiting the
choices of consumers in this way a stand needs to be made.

12. Finally, on a
personal note, I’d like to openly criticise the extremely poor baby changing
facilities at the ExCeL arena – where the only facilities in a male area were
being used as a store/cleaning cupboard and where I was forced to use a
women’s toilet. As well as making assumptions on the basis of gender this is unfortunate as the level of
organisation at the London Games was extraordinary and I am happy to praise the
Games Makers and the organisers for creating a public event that seemed to have
been considered to (almost) the smallest detail. I hope that in Glasgow in two years’ time
there is a little more recognition that there might be one or two men that have
babies who need changing...

Anyway, that was the Games that was. They were gripping, exhilarating, always interesting,
often entertaining and for the most part a positive showcase for international
sport. Long live what Aidan Burley calls
“multi-cultural crap”.

Monday, 6 August 2012

A little over two years ago, the Liberal Democrats
entered into a coalition with the Conservative Party. There were a number of reasons even cynical
liberals like myself, who had expressed a preference for a “progressive alliance” following the election, felt we could and should support it. Firstly,
as a pluralist, I hoped we could demonstrate that coalition government can be
effective and that the adversarial politics of the past might be replaced with
a less combative, collaborative approach.
Idealism aside, there seemed strong practical reasons to provide stable
government in the interests of the nation and to tackle the inherited economic
difficulties. And – far more appealing
to liberals – the coalition agreement promised an opportunity to implement key
liberal objectives such as electoral reform or the creation of a democratic
House of Lords.

If a week in politics is a long time then two years is an
eternity. Embarrassing failure on both
counts is all that we have to show for that initial optimism. As if that was not sufficiently bad, we have accepted
huge electoral reverses as a price for remaining in coalition – an arrangement
which, a few significant measures aside, has done less than most of envisaged to see our key aims
translated into action or to take our party forward.

I continue to believe that the Liberal Democrats should remain
in government even if, with retrospective hindsight, I feel the basis on which
we were sold it was flawed and the naïveté of the negotiators
breathtaking. Today, as it emerged that
Lords reform is to be abandoned (or, to use the rhetoric of January 1988, has
become as dead as the Pythonesque parrot) blame has been laid squarely at the
feet of the Conservative and Labour parties.
That they deserve to be derided for their respective roles is not in
question. However, there remain deeper
questions closer to home in regards our own leadership and our party’s failure
to seize the opportunity we were given. The
failure to deliver is partially our own and while Nick Clegg’s justifiable
anger towards our Conservative partners was expressed eloquently in an
admittedly bold and fascinating speech earlier today, it is perhaps time for
some quiet introspection rather than grand, retaliatory gestures.

Coalition has set the cause of electoral and House of
Lords reform back at least a generation.
That is Nick Clegg’s legacy. It
is not one he wanted and it will undoubtedly pain him to realise it, but that
opportunity is lost for the foreseeable future and possibly a lifetime. It hurts Nick, and no doubt it hurts all
progressives who care about democracy. The
reality that Liberal Democrats find themselves in is accepting that even being
a minority party in coalition government affords little influence to accomplish
key policy objectives or even imbue government policy with a liberal tinge; as
Kevin McNamara writes today on Lib Dem Voice, we have merely provided a few
Liberal Democrat cherries in what is a distinctively Conservative cake. This in turn begs several questions about our
role in government and the direction the party should take next.

That,
however, is not the subject of my attentions. I am more directly concerned with the matter
of what amounts to the defeat of Lords reform and Nick Clegg’s response to it. There was more than a hint of despair in
Clegg’s statement: “despite these painstaking
efforts the Labour party and Conservative backbenchers united to block any
further progress, preventing government from securing a timetable motion
without which the Bill effectively becomes impossible to deliver.” Referring particularly to Labour, he said: “In
my discussions with [them], they have made it clear that while they continue to
back Lords reform in principle they are set on blocking it in practice. Supporting
the ends, but – when push comes to shove – obstructing the means. Regrettably
Labour is allowing short-term political opportunism to thwart long-term
democratic change.” Clegg’s frustration
was almost tangible.

Turning
on the Conservatives, Clegg was at his most effective and brutal. “Coalition works on mutual respect; it is a
reciprocal arrangement, a two-way street” he explained. “When part of a contract is broken, it is
normal to amend that contract in order then to move on.” He stated that he would be instructing
Liberal Democrat MPs to vote against boundary changes because delivering them
without Lords reform would create an “imbalance...in our political system: cut[ting] the number of MPs without enhancing the
legitimacy and effectiveness of the Lords...weaken[s] parliament as a whole.” Intriguingly
he revealed he had offered opportunities for the Conservatives to “progress
with both reforms” by offering a Referendum on Lords Reform to coincide with
the 2015 General Election. But that was
rejected, so there is now a requirement to “restore balance to the Coalition
Agreement”.

It was a pretty effective speech, stemming from both
conviction and frustration, which he finished by hitting the right notes on
other key policy areas and a promise to “anchor this government firmly in the
centre ground”. In a sense, he was
startlingly optimistic given this recent setback. His firmness and tone are to be
welcomed. But in some key respects Clegg
was plainly wrong and his anger towards Conservatives dishonouring the
coalition agreement a little misplaced.

Fellow Lib Dems will
tire of me saying this, but what is actually in the coalition agreement is
this:

“We will establish a committee
to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis
of proportional representation. The committee
will come forward with a draft motion by December 2010. It is likely that this will advocate single long
terms of office. It is also likely that
there will be a grandfathering system for current Peers. In the interim, Lords appointments will be made
with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share
of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election.”

Now, of course I
understand that what the 91 Conservative rebels have done flies in the face of
the spirit of the coalition agreement.
But it’s not the spirit that matters: it’s the black and white, what is
spelled out on paper. And there’s
absolutely nothing in that coalition agreement that binds any Conservative MP
to support Lords Reform: in fact, the little that has been promised has already been achieved.

Clearly it’s a little
more complex than that and there were assumptions of good faith on the part of
the respective leaderships. But
assumptions are not contractual. Having read
David Laws’ 22 Days in May, it is
quite remarkable how little attention was actually given over to Lords Reform. There certainly seems a startling amount of naïveté
on the part of our negotiators that the Conservatives would hold up their end
of the deal; so sure were we that Cameron would bring his party with him on the
matter that we failed to so much as ensure a promise of Lords reform in the
coalition agreement. How could we sign
up to such a thing when no plain text reading of it could be interpreted as
such?

And so, when Clegg argues passionately
that “Lords reform was...written into the coalition agreement – without
argument or controversy” he’s overlooking an astonishing lack of detail and
clarity. With hindsight, senior Liberal
Democrats must realise they should have pressed harder for watertight
promises. It is simply unbelievable that some of the
sharpest political minds could have put together a coalition agreement that
would allow disgruntled Tory backbenchers the opportunity to derail a key
Liberal Democrat policy and for that we should accept some responsibility.

Clegg went on to state that he “had hoped
that, with enough compromise and cross-party involvement we could build a
consensus delivering it once and for all.” That is fine sentiment indeed. However, it was never matched by any real
effort to build a parliamentary consensus.
This may of course be because so much Lib Dem faith had been invested in
the Prime Minister’s ability to deliver in spite of the wishes of his party,
even after the AV fiasco. However, to
any canny political observer, for Lords reform to be achieved would require
significant Labour support. Charles Kennedy’s
appeal for “a progressive alliance” came too late to be effective but such a
call should have been made earlier, before Labour saw their opportunity to
cynically destabilise the coalition.
Another notable failure was to give Labour nothing really worth voting
for: either a more democratic package of reform or reason to believe that their
cynical objectives could actually be met by siding against Tory rebels. What is clear is that Clegg’s hoped-for
consensus failed to materialise and that the miserable compromise of 15 year
terms, huge constituencies with list PR and the retention of 12 Lords Spiritual
was partly responsible. Nick Clegg’s
ambition to achieve reform, almost irrespective of what that reform actually
was on the basis that it must naturally be better than the status quo, was
ultimately self-defeating.

Liberal Democrats will have expected
Labour to have supported Lords Reform but the nature of tribal politics means
that such assumptions should not be easily made and certainly not taken for
granted. The political reality was that Labour
perceived they had more to gain from obstruction that co-operation, something
that should have been adequately addressed and remedied. Clegg insisted today that “it is obvious that
the Bill’s opponents would now seek to inflict on it a slow death.” That is true, but it need not necessarily
have been.In any
case, few coherent attempts at constructive dialogue appear to have been made. It
is difficult to know whether it was a naive faith in the Prime Minister or a
refusal to co-operate with Labour that was more costly, but the failure to
achieve “consensus” has proved a bar to delivery and Clegg’s words speak of his
own inability to achieve it.

Whether it was wise to threaten blocking
boundary changes in retaliation for the loss of Lords Reform in advance of the
vote is questionable. It is unlikely to have much of an effect on Tory rebels,
many of whom have little love for the coalition, while at the same time
ensuring that opponents of boundary changes within Labour were further
incentivised to vote with them. This represents another
tactical failure, although probably too late to make much difference to the
outcome. Now it is clear that Lords Reform is a
non-starter in this parliament, it may be no bad thing to withdraw support for boundary
alterations that will only damage the Liberal Democrats - although this is sure to delight many right-wing Tories and is neither the best weapon in our armoury nor the most pertinent issue we could choose to influence. Whether this “rebalances” the coalition is
uncertain. Personally, I feel that recent
events may have long and lasting ramifications for coalition dynamics and, potentially,
government stability.

Nick Clegg had a word for “modernisers
and campaigners” who desire a more democratic second chamber: “I am
as disappointed as you that we have not delivered an elected Lords this time
around. But Lords Reform has always been a case of two steps forward, one step
back. And my hope is that we will return
to it, in the next Parliament emboldened by the overwhelming vote in favour of
our Bill at second reading.” This is not
a case of gradual progress but one of climbing what once seemed an insurmountable
ladder to place the issue firmly on the political agenda, only to slither down
the snake’s back all the way to square one.

Nick Clegg is right to bemoan failure. But, for all the finger pointing, it is a collective
failure. Instead of the promised “new
politics” of compromise and consensus we’ve witnessed entrenched tribalism,
easy point scoring and refusal to engage on the basis of small-minded
self-interest. It is a failure of the
political system to reform itself in the public interest, and one in which the
Liberal Democrats must take some share of the responsibility.

The cause has been set back significantly but not entirely defeated, even if the immediate future looks grim. Whether the issue can be
revisted in the next parliament, as Clegg plainly hopes, is uncertain and seems highly unlikely. But when Lords Reform does again make it onto
the parliamentary agenda, I hope that debate will stem from a collaborative determination
to redesign democracy so absent on this occasion.

Saturday, 4 August 2012

Judy Steel, wife of former Liberal leader David Steel, and announced her
support for Scottish independence, according to today's Daily Record.

She is reported as saying: "“I have
always believed in Scotland as an independent country. It’s an emotional thing. I suppose it’s tied up with my
admiration for the Scandinavian countries and the influence of my parents, who
were very disillusioned by the trappings of post-imperial Britain. It may be good for Britain as a whole and
give it the chance to find a level where it can shake off that very grandiose
and rather pompous history.” That’s a
very timely intervention given the interpretation and presentation of British
history at the Olympics opening ceremony but what is more telling is her use of
the word “always”.

The implication is obvious – she has held this belief for as long as she
remembers but until now it has never been possible to be public about it. Perhaps it is because her husband is no
longer the high profile figure he once was, or maybe it’s because she feels
that the momentum is firmly behind the “Yes” campaign, but she evidently feels
she now has the freedom to be intellectually honest to her beliefs.

That she should support independence is not particularly surprising to
me. Judy Steel has been around politics for many years. She’s experienced the highs and lows of the
70s and 80s and seen how the federalism espoused by the Liberals and later the
Liberal Democrats has been replaced by a turgid devolutionism. She’s seen the more ambitious aims of her
husband’s Commission of 2006 fall by the wayside. Moreover she’s been married to a Scottish MP
who, whatever one thinks of him, has a history of advocating greater freedom for
Scotland and Scots. Such ambitions have
been consistently frustrated by the failure of Westminster and the Liberal
Democrats to deliver anything resembling a real federalism, let alone the kind
of increased freedoms most Scots seem to want.

Given this, I don’t find it at all unusual for someone like Judy Steel
to be independence-inclined. However, it
appears that her convictions go back several decades and pre-date her marriage
to David. What is surprising, therefore, is that she’s
been able to successfully keep her views to herself for so long.

Lady Steel believes that being pro-Scotland and advocating independence
as a means to achieving a brighter future is not synonymous with being pro-SNP. In
this I am in agreement with her. The
intellectual arguments for independence – in fact the fundamentally liberal reasons
to support independence – are by no means the sole property of Mr Salmond’s
party.

What we are seeing is that a number of Liberal Democrats, whose
adherence to liberal principles cannot be questioned, are beginning to either
express support for Scottish independence or at least indicate that they will
vote “Yes” in 2014 in preference to the status quo. These include Lady Steel, the Earl of Mar and
Kellie and several other party activists.

There must be recognition within the party that, as a broad church, we
should accept that there is a range of opinion within the party on the question
of Scotland’s constitutional future. We
are after all, Liberals. (Not to mention
that we’re Democrats.) We should respect
the views of all party members and allow them to freely campaign as they feel
fit. I certainly don’t want any other Judy
Steels within the party to feel silenced by an imposed conformity and be
pressured to keep their opinions to themselves.
Neither do I want to see others defecting to the SNP simply to obtain
the freedom to campaign in favour of a “Yes” vote.

Having been in conversation with a number of other independence-minded
Liberal Democrats (many of whom have approached me after reading my blog), we feel the time has arrived to establish an internal
grouping within the party to campaign for independence. What we will not be is anti-liberal or even intrinsically
anti-leadership: we merely wish to positively campaign for what we believe will
facilitate a better Scotland, a more liberal Scotland, a freer Scotland.

Lady Steel is of course welcome to join us. It is early days yet and the proposed
grouping is as yet unestablished; news of future developments will appear on
this blog as well as via other channels as determined by the group. What is clear is that liberalism is not
defined by attitudes towards Scottish independence and that the same should
apply to the Liberal Democrats.

Anyone interested in being involved with a potential Lib Dems for Independence group can contact me, in the first instance, via twitter (@scottishliberal)

Awards and reviews

Reviews of A Scottish Liberal

"Andrew is an excellent writer and analyst about a broad range of policy and philosophical topics. It is great to see him recognised as such across Scotland and throughout the UK. And he speaks Gaelic." Gavin Hamilton, A View from the Hills

"Every one of our MP's should read this. Best blog I have read this year." Gerry McGregor, Thoughts of a Caithness Loon

"Andrew has an easy style of writing and a moderate and thought-out approach to his subject. He is as likely to criticise his own party, as he is another. In short he thinks for himself, makes his arguments accordingly and is nobody's yes man." Tris, Munguin's Republic

"The blog by Andrew Page is well worth visiting. He seems to be a man that will not bow down to party dogma [unlike the Labour MPs and MSPs]. I respect a man who is willing to shelve his career to do what he thinks is right."Gedguy, My Frustrated Rants

Andrew Page - A Scottish Liberal

Andrew is a member of the Liberal Democrats, who feels politics is at its best when it empowers and is at its worst when it descends into tribal adversarialism.
Andrew is is the treasurer of the Lib Dem Mental Health Association. He is also a member of the Council for British Archaeology, the Liberal Democrat History Group, Lib Dems Against Trident, Lib Dems for a Republic and the Liberal Democrat Association of Trade Unionists.
Thoughts expressed on here are Andrew's own and occasionally may differ from those of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.